To Arm or Not to Arm, That May be the Question

Before I start in on a rant about the 2nd Amendment and the attempts by the Senate to do what it proscribes, I would like to bring up that toxic subject: abortion.

When the Roe v. Wade decision was made, it was lauded as the end of "back alley abortions", that women would no longer need to risk their own lives to terminate a pregnancy. To hear the Left tell it, women were dying left and right at the hands of unlicensed abortionists. I would like them to read this:

The Trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnells

If you choose to read it, be aware that it is pretty graphic and very disturbing.

But let's go back to something more pleasant... gun violence.

Nobody is in favor of people randomly shooting other people. I think we can agree with that. I believe even the hated NRA is not in favor of gun violence, though you wouldn't know that from reading the general media. Reading the opinion pieces, the editorials, and even the news stories, one might come away thinking the NRA wants mass murder. Rational people will dismiss such as hyperbole and distortion. Still, there are many who believe the NRA is merely a shill for gun makers and a too strong lobby.

I don't.  Growing up, I was taught that guns weren't needed by the average person.  My father didn't own one, my mother didn't own one, and I was not allowed to have a BB gun (cap pistols were permitted, however). I got a BB gun anyway; more than one, as I recall. And I and my friends risked the proverbial losing of an eye by engaging in BB gun fights. None of us lost an eye. In fact, the worst that happened to any of us was a welt when we were hit on a bare arm.

Dianne Feinstein (D, California) jumped on the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary to introduce a reprise of the old "Assault Weapon" ban. Many of my friends (and possibly yours) will explain that assault weapons are already banned. And they are. What Feinstein wanted to do was ban assault weapon looking rifles. Some of which are less powerful than hunting rifles which would not be banned. Majority Leader Harry Reid shot down (excuse the pun) her bill because he knew it wouldn't pass... he just couldn't guarantee the votes. At the same time, we are being told that "everyone" is in favor of such a ban. This, I think, is why the NRA is being trashed of late.

What Reid's strategy is, I think, is to get something limiting magazine capacity and expanding background checks. And then allow Feinstein's ban to be added as an  admendment. He is also warning, admonishing, Republicans not to filibuster amendments. I suspect he thinks he can get Feinstein's ban in through the back door, so to speak.

But let's look at something absolutely true:

No proposed federal legislation (and no proposed or passed) state laws would do anything to prevent what happened at Sandy Hook. Even proponents of the proposals and laws acknowledge this.

It's very simple. If someone wants to commit such mayhem, they will get weapons illegally. In other words, they will readily break the huge numbers of gun control laws already on the books. Adding more laws will simply add laws that will be broken.

Criminals and the insane will ignore any law that gets in their way and find ways around any law which prevents them from getting what they want.

Will reducing the privacy of those with mental illnesses help? Maybe. But who increased that privacy? Why, it is the very same people who now want it reduced today in the name of gun control.

Society is a complex organism. A free society is even more complex; a delicate balance between individual liberty and collective safety. We are rapidly approaching a tipping point.